Keith Hill: I am announcing today my intention to prepare and consult on a revision of Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG) 25, development and flood risk, and a direction in respect of certain development in areas at risk of flooding.
	PPG25 was published in July 2001. Its key aim is to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the planning of new developments, so as to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage which floods cause. Since it was published it has succeeded in raising the profile of flooding matters in the planning process. A review of its working last year, after three years of operation, showed that its core policies remain valid, but that more needs to be done to implement them fully.
	I therefore plan to issue a draft of a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25 for consultation later in 2005. In particular, the new version will clarify the core sequential test that matches types of development to levels of flood risk. It will also strengthen the requirement for flood risk assessments to be prepared to inform the consideration of development plans and of individual development proposals in flood risk areas.
	The consultation draft of PPS25 will be prepared on the basis that a standing planning Direction in respect of certain proposed developments in areas at risk of flooding will be made under article 14 of the General Development Procedure Order 1995. This would require an application for major development to be referred to the Government Office, to consider whether it should be called in for decision by the First Secretary of State, if the Environment Agency sustains an objection to it on flood risk grounds, after having been re-consulted following an initial objection.
	This consultation forms an important component in the Government's wider response to its general consultation last year on its forward strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in "Making space for water". My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment and Agri-environment is making a separate statement on this today.

Removal of Agency Status

Ivor Caplin: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week in his Budget statement that there would be a change to the tax regime for the new compensation scheme which will commence on 6 April 2005.
	I am pleased to confirm that because of the special demands of service in our armed forces, the Government has now decided that lump sums awarded to those who are able to remain in service after their injury or illness will be paid tax-free.
	This change reflects the importance that this Government attach to our armed forces in the event of injury or disability.

Bill Rammell: In his written statement of 2 March 2005, Official Report, column 89WS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw) informed hon. Members of the outcomes of the 1 March London meeting in support of the Palestinians. In respect of security sector reform the international community committed itself to providing financial support to re-equip the security services; establishing a fund for early retirement of security personnel; and helping to address the cost of pensions for security officers.
	In his written answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 3 February 2005, Official Report, column 1109, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Douglas Alexander) set out our on-going assistance to the Palestinians to improve the performance of their security forces, through provision of technical assistance and equipment. On 23 December we informed Parliament, by means of a Departmental minute, of a gift of equipment to the Palestinian Central Intervention Forces (CIF) to help them provide public order security for the 9 January Presidential elections and beyond. In the event, the CIF were disbanded as part of Palestinian moves towards rationalising their security services and members returned to their original units, notably the national security forces. Officials from the Consulate General in Jerusalem and the Embassy in Tel Aviv have kept in close contact with Palestinian security officials to ensure that the equipment supplied (communications equipment, tents, uniforms and office equipment) will be used effectively by Palestinian security forces.
	The Palestinian security forces, including the civil police, with whom we have also been working, performed well in the run-up to, and during, the 9 January elections, when security was good.
	We had intended to donate twenty cars to the CIF but the delivery of these was delayed and did not take place before disbandment of the CIF. We have waited until after the London meeting to see how Palestinian security sector reform was likely to progress and have now decided to give the cars to the national security forces, units of which will play a security role similar to that envisaged for the CIF. We have received assurances from the Palestinian Minister of the Interior on the use to which these cars will be put. A recently appointed military liaison officer from the MOD is working closely with the NSF to improve their capacity. He has identified a shortage of transport as one of their strategic weaknesses and will monitor closely the deployment of these vehicles.
	We are working closely with US security co-ordinator General Ward who is leading the Quartet's oversight committee on security. We will continue, in co-ordination with General Ward and the rest of the international community, to assist the Palestinian security sector to improve its capacity to maintain public order security and prevent terrorist attacks, in the crucial period leading up to the proposed Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in July, and beyond.

Hazel Blears: We have today published a consultation paper which sets out detailed proposals for implementing a reformed system of police pensions financing. We intend that the new system should be in place by April 2006 in line with the introduction of a new police pension scheme.
	In 2001 a working party from the Treasury, Home Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions completed a joint review of arrangements for the financing of police and fire pensions. The police pension scheme is currently financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. This means that officers' pension contributions go into police authorities' operating accounts from which the pensions of retired officers are paid. Authorities receive central Government funding support: to pension payments as part of police grant.
	The joint review recommended revised financial arrangements based on officers' contributions and a new employer's contribution being paid into a separate pensions account from which pensions payments would be made. The new pensions account would be locally administered but central Government would either top up the account or recover any surplus as necessary. The recommended system is similar to those used for other unfunded public service pension schemes such as for NHS staff, teachers and civil servants. Similar changes have been proposed for the firefighters' pensions.
	The new arrangements would cover the financing of both existing and new police pension schemes, but would have no impact on their terms and conditions. The arrangements would benefit police authorities by removing year-to-year volatility in pensions expenditure arising from the uneven incidence of lump sum retirement payments. They would also enable the rising burden of police pensions expenditure due to increasing numbers in retirement over the coming years to be kept separate from police forces' operational expenditure.
	While welcoming the recommendations of the joint review it was recognised that work was still needed to map out the details of how the new system could be successfully implemented. A Home Office led working group has now considered these issues in the context of the police pension scheme and has produced a report with recommendations. A key point of the report is that the changes, at an aggregate level, will be cost neutral and will have no impact upon either the local or national tax payer. However, we recognise the need for police authorities, forces and other stakeholders in the police service to contribute to the debate on these detailed proposals before we come to a final decision on implementation.
	Copies of the consultation document are available in the House Library and on the Home Office website www.homeoffice.gov.uk/.
	The consultation period will last for 12 weeks and will close on 17 June 2005.

Ian Pearson: The third report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governor and officer grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service has been published today and copies placed in the Library. I would like to thank the chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work in producing their recommendations.
	This completes the PSPRB's work for the current year, their recommendations for HM Prison Service having been published and accepted by the Government last month.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2005. The cost of the award will be met from within the existing budget allocation for the Service.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Against a planning assumption of dealing with 45,000 new insolvencies and 81,000 new claims for redundancy payments, I have set the Insolvency Service the following targets for the year 2005–06.
	
		
			 Published Targets 2005–06 Target 
		
		
			 Process Redundancy Payment claims for payment within:  
			 3 Weeks 70 per cent 
			 6 Weeks 92 per cent 
			 Reduce the unit cost of enforcement activity by 25 per cent 
			 Increase enforcement activity outputs (disqualification, bankruptcy restrictions orders and reports by official receivers of criminal conduct) by 41 per cent 
			 Reduce average time for concluding disqualification proceedings to 22 months 
			 Increase the level of public confidence in the service's enforcement regime to 55 per cent 
			 Increase the level of user satisfaction index to 88 per cent 
			 Reduce the bankruptcy administration fee by1 April 2006 to £1,600* 
			 Reduce the company administration fee by1 April 2006 to £1,920* 
		
	
	* Not adjusted for inflation
	In addition to the above targets I have asked that, as part of its efficiency promise, the service looks to reduce the costs of accommodation and procurement by 8 per cent. by 31 March 2006 from the 2003–04 baseline and further reduce the costs of redundancy payment processing by 2.5 per cent. by 31 March 2006. Overall I have asked the Service to produce efficiency gains of at least £6 million over the period to 2007–08.
	The Service will also be seeking re-accreditation to the Investors in People standard by January 2006. The Service is also required to meet centrally promulgated targets relating to replying to correspondence from hon. Members, reducing the level of sick absence and processing payments to suppliers. From 1 April 2004 The Service's case administration work has been funded by its fee income and the Service is also required to ensure that it balances its costs and income over a three-year period.

Alan Johnson: I am today able to announce the annual performance targets in 2005–06 for each of the executive agencies of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	The targets I have agreed are set out below.
	Further information on the plans of each of the businesses in 2005–06 is contained in their individual business plans which have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.
	Jobcentre Plus
	Job entry target 1 
	To achieve 6,659,148 points based on Job Entry outcomes achieved.
	This excludes performance in the seven Jobcentre Plus Districts piloting a new Job Outcome Target (JOT) measure. As the existing target and the new JOT are completely different measures of performance, it is not appropriate to include the pilot areas in the national target. By way of comparison, the 2004–05 target would have been 6,580,647 points had the seven Districts been excluded. The pilots will be set separate performance targets.
	Monetary value of fraud and error target
	By March 2006, to reduce losses from fraud and error in working-age Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance to no more than 5.2 per cent. of the monetary value of these benefits paid during the year.
	Employer outcome target
	To ensure that at least 84 per cent. of employers placing their vacancies with Jobcentre Plus have a positive outcome.
	Customer service target
	To achieve an 81 per cent. customer service level in the delivery of the standards set out in the Customers' and Employers' Charters.
	Business delivery target
	To ensure that specified key Jobcentre Plus business processes are delivered efficiently, accurately and to specified standards in 90.3 per cent. of cases checked 2 .
	Unit cost target
	Targets for benefit processing and job-broking (cost per job entry point) are being finalised and will be published after the Easter recess.
	Notes:
	1 This target is measured by a points score system, which focuses efforts and resources on helping people in priority groups into work such as lone parents and Incapacity Benefit customers. For each person that Jobcentre Plus helps into work, it earns from one up to 12 points. For example, earning one point for already employed customers to 12 points for a customer with a health condition or disability in receipt of an inactive benefit. 2 These processes are: Income Support accuracy, Jobseeker's Allowance accuracy; Incapacity Benefit accuracy; Labour Market Interventions; attendance at an independent assessment following a Basic Skills referral; action taken with lone parent customers who are due a review/trigger Work Focused Interview.
	The Pension Service
	Pay the guarantee element of Pension Credit to at least 2.1 million pensioner households.
	Reduce losses from fraud and error in Pension Credit, with a 20 per cent. reduction by 2006 against the 2001–02 Minimum Income Guarantee baseline.
	Ensure that 92 per cent. of telephone calls to The Pension Service Centres are answered by Customer Advisors and less than 1 per cent. of attempted telephone calls receive the engaged tone or message.
	Ensure Pension Credit applications are processed on average within 10 days.
	Achieve a Pension Credit accuracy rate of 96 per cent.
	Clear 95 per cent. of State Pension claims in 60 days (non-complex cases) 3 .
	Clear 91 per cent. of State Pension claims in 85 days (complex cases)3 .
	Achieve a State Pension claims accuracy rate of 98 per cent.
	Deal with State Pension Forecast requests in an average of 15 days.
	Issue Winter Fuel Payments for 2005–06 (all automatic payments, and successful claims received before 24 September 2005) by Christmas 2005.
	Unit cost targets are being developed and will be published later in the year.
	Notes:
	3 Complex claims are claims to State Pension from customers who have been widowed or divorced and the spouse's National Insurance contributions are taken into consideration.
	Child Support Agency
	The performance targets for 2005–06 will focus on progressing CSA's priorities. The targets set out below, with the exception of the debt target which is new, have been rolled forward from 2004–05. Ministers will review the overall package of targets once the new Chief Executive is in post and has had a chance to develop more detailed plans for the delivery of the child support service in 2005–06. Revised targets resulting from this review will be published as appropriate later in the year.
	
		
			  
		
		
			 Case compliance By 31 March 2006 to be collecting child maintenance and/or arrears from 78 per cent. of all cases with a maintenance liability using the collection service. 
			 Cash compliance By 31 March 2006 to be collecting 75 per cent. of child maintenance and/or arrears due to be paid through the collection service. 
			 Accuracy By 31 March 2006 accuracy on the last decision made for all maintenance calculations checked in the year to be correct to the nearest penny in at least 90 per cent. of cases. 
			 Debt To collect arrears equivalent to 30 per cent. of the amount accruing between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2006. 
			 Unit Costs Achieve a cost per case of £202. 
		
	
	Disability and Carers Service
	
		
			   2005–06 target 
		
		
			 Accuracy of decision making and payment 
			 Disability Living Allowance 90% 
			 Attendance Allowance 90% 
			 Carer's Allowance  96% 
			 Average actual clearance time 
			 Disability Living Allowance New claims Reconsiderations Appeals 39 days35 days37 days 
			 Attendance Allowance New claims Reconsiderations Appeals 22 days35 days35 days 
			 Carer's Allowance New claimsAppeals 22 days35 days 
			 Helpline—telephone service  90% of callsanswered with lessthan 1% receivingengaged tone. 
		
	
	The Appeals Service
	The average waiting time for an appeal to be heard will be no more than 11 weeks from the time of receipt by the Appeals Service 4 ;
	The number of cases over 20 weeks old as at 31 March 2006 will be at the same level, or lower, than the projected number as at 1 April 2005 5 (It is assumed that the number of cases over 20 weeks old as at 1 April 2005 will reflect delivery of our 2004–05 target of a 15 per cent. reduction in these cases); 4 and
	For cases returned by the Commissioner, the average waiting time for an appeal to be re-heard will be no more than eight weeks from the date of return to the Appeals Service. 5
	Notes:
	4 Excludes stayed cases awaiting decision in lead cases in a higher court (the effective date will commence from withdrawal of stay being notified). 5 Excludes cases requiring further evidence.
	The Rent Service
	
		Service delivery
		
			 Type of determination Timescale 2005–06 target 
		
		
			 Housing BenefitWith an inspectionWithout an inspectionPre-tenancyRedetermination Within 15 working days Within 3 working days Within 4 working days Within 15 working days 93%93%93%93% 
			 Fair Rents Within 40 working days 93% 
			 Value for money  
			 Element  
			 Productivity: increase by  3% 
			 Cost per case: reduce by  1% 
			 Quality1. Proportion of Local Reference Rent housing benefit determinations to be upheld on redetermination:  90% 
			 2. Proportion of Fair Rent valuations to be upheld on Judicial Review:  90% 
			 Customer satisfaction 
			 Element  
			 Local authority Housing Benefit departments: proportion rating The Rent Service's performance as "Satisfactory" to "Good".  95% 
			 Fair Rent customers and Housing Benefit inspections: Proportion of customers rating the Rent Service's performance as "Satisfactory" or "Good".  92% 
			 Supplier Payment Performance 
			 To pay 98 per cent of all undisputed invoices within 30 working days of receipt.  98%

Chris Pond: I am pleased to announce that the gross discretionary Social Fund budget for 2005–06 will be £719 million. This includes a further increase in net treasury funding of £10 million compared with last year and means that net funding is now £40 million higher than 2002–03. It is the final one of three annual increases from a £90 million boost for the discretionary Social Fund announced in the autumn 2002 pre-budget report.
	After careful consideration, I have decided to allocate all the extra net funding to community care grant needs. I have therefore increased the community care grant (CCG) budget by £10 million. This is a further significant increase that will help the most vulnerable. It has been distributed so that every district benefits by an increase in their CCG budget and districts move closer to meeting the same proportion of demand nationally.
	My current priorities are for the grants budget. The net loans budget, however, received a significant investment of £10 million in the first year (2003–04) and this, plus higher loan recoveries have promoted steady growth in the gross loans budget. The gross loans budget for 2005–06 will be £580 million, which represents an increase of £20 million over the April 2004 allocation. To maintain fairness within the scheme, the gross loans budget will continue to be allocated to districts to support consistency of outcome for applicants wherever they live.
	£1 million will be retained centrally as a contingency reserve. For example to provide additional help to districts facing unexpected and unplanned expenditure.
	Details of individual district budget allocations have been placed in the Library.
	The discretionary social fund budget is cash limited. Budgets are allocated to districts on 1 April each year.
	The gross discretionary SF budget allocated for 2005–06 is £719 million made up of: New money (AME) £178.2m Forecast loan recovery £540.8m This was allocated as follows: Loans £580m Grants £138m Contingency reserve £1m
	If the forecast for loan recoveries proves to be an underestimate, any additional recoveries can be allocated to districts during the year.
	The contingency reserve is held centrally and allocations made from it re-imburse districts for expenditure resulting from a local accident or disaster (eg, flooding)
	Since April 1997, the gross discretionary social fund budget has increased by £251.5 million from £467.5 million to £719 million, an increase of over 53 per cent.
	Since April 1997, the community care grant budget has increased by £41 million from £97 million to £138 million, an increase of just over 42 per cent.